Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24168655›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2013

Estimating autozygosity from high-throughput information: effects of SNP density and genotyping errors.

Maja Ferenčaković, Johann Sölkner, Ino Curik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

136 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Deciphering genetic diversity and selection footprints in Rathi cattle through ddRAD-based genome-wide analysis.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Genomic Analysis of Inbreeding Depression on Productive Traits in Rubia Galega Beef Cattle Breed.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maja FerenčakovićDepartment of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Gregor Mendel Str, 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria. johann.soelkner@boku.ac.at.
Johann Sölkner
Ino Curik

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRuns of homozygosity are long, uninterrupted stretches of homozygous genotypes that enable reliable estimation of levels of inbreeding (i.e., autozygosity) based on high-throughput, chip-based single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes. While the theoretical definition of runs of homozygosity is straightforward, their empirical identification depends on the type of SNP chip used to obtain the data and on a number of factors, including the number of heterozygous calls allowed to account for genotyping errors. We analyzed how SNP chip density and genotyping errors affect estimates of autozygosity based on runs of homozygosity in three cattle populations, using genotype data from an SNP chip with 777,972 SNPs and a 50 k chip.

resultsData from the 50 k chip led to overestimation of the number of runs of homozygosity that are shorter than 4 Mb, since the analysis could not identify heterozygous SNPs that were present on the denser chip. Conversely, data from the denser chip led to underestimation of the number of runs of homozygosity that were longer than 8 Mb, unless the presence of a small number of heterozygous SNP genotypes was allowed within a run of homozygosity.

conclusionsWe have shown that SNP chip density and genotyping errors introduce patterns of bias in the estimation of autozygosity based on runs of homozygosity. SNP chips with 50,000 to 60,000 markers are frequently available for livestock species and their information leads to a conservative prediction of autozygosity from runs of homozygosity longer than 4 Mb. Not allowing heterozygous SNP genotypes to be present in a homozygosity run, as has been advocated for human populations, is not adequate for livestock populations because they have much higher levels of autozygosity and therefore longer runs of homozygosity. When allowing a small number of heterozygous calls, current software does not differentiate between situations where these calls are adjacent and therefore indicative of an actual break of the run versus those where they are scattered across the length of the homozygous segment. Simple graphical tests that are used in this paper are a current, yet tedious solution.

Indexed as

GenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHomozygotePolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnimalsCattleChromosomesGenetic VariationGenomeHeterozygoteHumansInbreedingMaleRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID24168655
PMCPMC4176748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.